On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 01:30:21PM -0500, Mental Patient wrote:
Tom wrote:
I filed a wishlist bug against "links" asking for it to support about:blank (highly useful in frames pages as a default for the "body" frame).
Thats an abuse of side effects and its usefulness is debatable. A highly useful default page in a frameset is one with relevant CONTENT. If you really want a blank page, create a blank page.
Okay, then the correct action is *not* to file a bug against links asking it to support about:blank. The correct action is to file a bug against Mozilla asking it to remove support for it in HREF and frame SRC arguments, correct?
As long as we care about being standards-compliant.....
/me ducks
The standard doesnt forbid it. Additional tags are what killed browser compatibility in the first place. We need more tags like iframe and embed. A generic csshole tag would suffice.
And if at somepoint that happened (fixing href and src tags) and your site broke, where would that leave things? You're relying on a side effect subject to interpretation. Thats it. This is not a flame, just an observation.
--
Mental ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
"The Torah... The Gospels... The Koran... Each claimed as the infallible word of GOD. Misquoted, misinterpreted, misunderstood, and misapplied. Maybe that's why he doesn't do any more interviews." - sinfest.com
CARPE NOCTEM, QUAM MINIMUM CREDULA POSTERO.
GPG public key: http://www.neverlight.com/pas/Mental.asc
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
